Improving Quantitative Studies of International Conflict: A Conjecture
MetadataShow full item record
CitationBeck, Nathaniel, Gary King, and Langche Zeng. 2000. Improving quantitative studies of international conflict: A conjecture. American Political Science Review 94(1): 21-35.
AbstractWe address a well-known but inffequently discussed problem in the quantitative study of international conflict: Despite immense data collections, prestigious journals, and sophisticated analyses, empirical findings in the literature on international conflict are often unsatisfying. Many statistical results change from article to article and specification to specification. Accurate forecasts are nonexistent. In this article we offer a conjecture about one source of this problem: The causes of conflict, theorized to be important but often found to be small or ephemeral, are indeed tiny for the vast majority of dyads, but they are large, stable, and replicable wherever the ex ante probability of conflict is large. This simple idea has an unexpectedly rich array of observable implications, all consistent with the literature. We directly test our conjecture by formulating a statistical model that includes its critical features. Our approach, aversion of a "neural network" model, uncovers some interesting structural features of international conflict and, as one evaluative measure, forecasts substantially better than any previous effort. Moreover, this improvement comes at little cost, and it is easy to evaluate whether the model is a statistical improvement over the simpler models commonly used.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3992145
- FAS Scholarly Articles